Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vheissu: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Vheissu]]: Keep |
an example |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
*'''Keep''': This is not speculation, the album is real. It is recorded. It will be released later this year. The information contained comes straight from the band. --[[User:Yoyomattys|Yoyomattys]] 6 July 2005 10:59 (EST) |
*'''Keep''': This is not speculation, the album is real. It is recorded. It will be released later this year. The information contained comes straight from the band. --[[User:Yoyomattys|Yoyomattys]] 6 July 2005 10:59 (EST) |
||
*'''Keep'''. There is a great deal of information about the album, and since a well-written article trumps concerns of notability, I would say hang onto it. Why rewrite this after the album is released? There are plenty of other album writeups that were created before the album was released, and kept. The band is signed with a major record label ([[Island Records]]), thus notable, and this album is going to be notable when it is released anyway. If not kept, at least '''merge''' with [[Thrice]]. - [[User:McCart42|McCart42]] [[User_talk:McCart42|(talk)]] 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. There is a great deal of information about the album, and since a well-written article trumps concerns of notability, I would say hang onto it. Why rewrite this after the album is released? There are plenty of other album writeups that were created before the album was released, and kept. The band is signed with a major record label ([[Island Records]]), thus notable, and this album is going to be notable when it is released anyway. If not kept, at least '''merge''' with [[Thrice]]. - [[User:McCart42|McCart42]] [[User_talk:McCart42|(talk)]] 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC) |
||
:*Here's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Push_Barman_to_Open_Old_Wounds&oldid=14715310 an example] of an album that was posted almost a month before it was released. Information was there that it was on a set path to be released, and I see no problem with posting it as soon as it's confirmed; this happens with many albums by popular groups and I don't see why it should be discouraged. If it is delayed or cancelled, then the writeup can be deleted, or if the artist is notable enough and the project was big enough, kept with information as to why it was delayed or canceled. - [[User:McCart42|McCart42]] [[User_talk:McCart42|(talk)]] 6 July 2005 18:26 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:26, 6 July 2005
This article is about music album that may be released someday, but for now it is just speculation on future events. Further, the bulk of the article is an email sent from a band member to the band's manager, which is an unencyclopedic source. Once this album is actually released, with known track names, it would be appropriate to have an article if the album is considered notable. Until then, the article is unverifiable, non-notable, and a likely piece of vanity. (No offense to the band- I hope Thrice thrives. Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:11 (UTC)
- Delete: Away with it. --Alex12 3 6 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)
- Delete until its real and then it may come back. --Etacar11 6 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, notability not established. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 01:34 (UTC)
- Keep: This is not speculation, the album is real. It is recorded. It will be released later this year. The information contained comes straight from the band. --Yoyomattys 6 July 2005 10:59 (EST)
- Keep. There is a great deal of information about the album, and since a well-written article trumps concerns of notability, I would say hang onto it. Why rewrite this after the album is released? There are plenty of other album writeups that were created before the album was released, and kept. The band is signed with a major record label (Island Records), thus notable, and this album is going to be notable when it is released anyway. If not kept, at least merge with Thrice. - McCart42 (talk) 6 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
- Here's an example of an album that was posted almost a month before it was released. Information was there that it was on a set path to be released, and I see no problem with posting it as soon as it's confirmed; this happens with many albums by popular groups and I don't see why it should be discouraged. If it is delayed or cancelled, then the writeup can be deleted, or if the artist is notable enough and the project was big enough, kept with information as to why it was delayed or canceled. - McCart42 (talk) 6 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)